Radiation warning labels for deadly mobes!
San Francisco supervisors get all overheated
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors has passed an ordinance that will require warning labels on mobile phones, indicating their radiative output especially for the scientifically-illiterate and paranoid.
The ordinance, which was passed with an overwhelming majority (10 to 1), will require anyone selling phones within the city to provide information on the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of all stocked handsets, once the Mayor signs it into legislation following a 10-day consultation period.
That information is already available on the FCC's site, but making it available in store will add weight to the idea that using a mobile phone is a health risk despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The San Francisco Chronicle quotes the chief sponsor claiming that the ordinance is “about helping people make informed choices”, but more information isn't always helpful.
We might suggest that all mobile phones carry tags indicating the brightness of their LCD screens and propensity to interfere with sleep, or the expected injury inflicted if thrown, or even how much of a twat you'll look talking on one, but we're not democratically elected to represent the good people of San Francisco.
There's ten days to comment before the Mayor signs the legislation, so the public will have time to air any nuclear-strength views. ®
COMMENTS
Scientific method:
1) Form reasoned hypothesis based upon observed facts or accepted theory.
2) Use hypothesis to make predictions.
3) Devise experiments to test said facts
Unfortunately, the epidemiological studies on mobile phone radiation have jumped straight to number three on this list. There is no observed causative effect between mobile phones and cancer. There is also no theoretical basis that stands up to scrutiny that suggests that this is the case. Thus spending more and more money conducting larger and larger studies to try to find a non-existent effect is a waste of money.
A number of studies have been conducted so far from tax revenue. In a time of economic recession, surely it is time to start focusing the now meagre amount of money available to science on something useful.
If you don't agree with my logic as stated above, please feel free to fund my research into the possible effects of people watching the well-known internet dancing badgers on the incidence of bovine TB in wild badgers. I will be conducting an epidemiological study which will compare the number of hits on said website to the incidence of this disease. To do so, I will require £1,000,000. If I fail to find anything from this study, I will just have to conduct a larger one, at a cost of £10,000,000 to make sure, etc.
You're repeating yourself
"2. Observation - the operation and usage of the devices involves the emission of radiation of certain frequences at a variety of power levels in close proximity to the skull."
Ignoring the fact that this is possibly the vaguest statement you could possibly make, how does that cause brain cancer? You can't keep substituting hypothesis with "No-one knows the dangers!"
"4. Conclusion - next logical step is to commission fact-gathering research project to collect data and investigate whether there are any correlations between mobile phone usage and instances of tumour development or other degenerative brain diseases over significant time periods."
I'll think you'll find that we've already done that bit. That's why everyone's saying, "There's no evidence."
Shhhh!!!
Let the ignoramuses believe that mobiles can kill and leave the rest of us with more bandwidth!
IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist
Steps to Take Before Choosing a Business Continuity Partner
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
